DieTrollDie’s Comments

While spending all this time and effort to file these cases, they are taking short-cuts with their filing. We recently found an obvious cut & paste in a motion for a protective order. The section in the new motion was taken word for word from an August 2012 motion in CO. I guess the death threats and harassment was soooooo bad that they couldn't think of anything new to say. Don't believe the claim that they are not a Copyright Troll. Here is the post.

Gibbs knows what he has to do before Judge Wright will even think of letting him off the hook. Yes, Brett, you are going to have to walk your sad little butt into the AUSA's office and spill your guts on the whole operation. You brought upon yourself and know it it time to take your knocks. Care to lessen it (not be pardoned), then start talking. If you don't, I feel nothing for your suffering - you earned it. I do regret your actions will affect your family, but you have the power to change that.

1. AF Holdings v. Harris (2:12-cv-02144) http://dietrolldie.com/2013/05/14/mr-harris-pro-se-doe-rejoins-the-fight-af-holdings-llc-v-harris- 212-cv-02144-az/ has a show cause order - dismiss case and possible sanctions.
2. IMO Syfert was able to get Prenda to pay a good amount to make this go away - along with a non-disclosure agreement. These clowns will know stay as far away from Syfert as possible, as he has inside information on what works against them. In previous filings he made it clear he wanted to settle, but that it would cost them a good amount. I guess they decided it was the right thing to do.
3. Until they make a bond or pay the sanctions (Judge Wright), they are screwing themselves in CA. The amount is minor in totality of what they made. By not paying it only gets worse - stupid greedy people. Who knows, maybe Lutz will feel the need to throw John Steel under the bus before John does it to him. Mark? You know you are expendable to John Steele. Time to make a deal and save your butt. Just my opinion.

Thanks for the story post. Copyrightclerk has noted that Prenda has recently dismissed at least 34 Sunlust case. Most of these dismissals are likely to have come from the CO Cisa case. http://copyrightclerk.com/2012/12/31/sunlust-pictures-llc-dismissed-34-suits-in-december/ I know there is one additional case from one of Prenda's key attorneys that was part of the Cisa case. I wish the CO judge would do something, but it appears the court may just allow them to run and hide.

So true - No legal duty (to Plaintiff or society) to secure the Internet connection or monitor for abuse. The only way the Tugboat case would make sense in this situation is that the ISP subscriber had a subscription to Plaintiff's Web site and agreed in the access/user agreement to ensure it wasn't shared out to non-paying personnel.